Podcast: God Squad: Love thy neighbor. No exceptions?



Tucson youth members of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition listen as Rep. Adelita Grijalva talks about the importance of youth voices on the issue of climate change and extreme heat. More than a dozen Arizona youth met with Representative Adelita Grijalva and Ward 5 council member Selina Barajas on Tuesday, at El Pueblo Activity Center in Tucson, to share some of their concerns about climate change, as well as some of the work they are already doing to address these issues.
When Carmen De Backer was a toddler, she would sit on the couch staring at photos of wildlife in the worn pages of National Geographic magazines her mom bought at the thrift store. She couldn’t read the articles so she would ask her older sisters to tell her about the wildlife in the photos.
That’s where her love for and curiosity about nature started.
Throughout grade school, she would revisit the magazines, reading the articles and looking at the photographs over and over. At about 7 years old, De Backer remembers watching a video about how polar bears and their environment were being impacted by a warming planet, their feet getting stuck in ice blocks and injuring the bears.
“I remember my heart, my heart broke,” De Backer said, as she dropped her hands to emphasize the heavy emotion. “I’m like, ‘why are people letting this happen?’”
Carmen De Backer is photographed at 5 years old with binoculars hanging from her neck. De Backer, now 16 and co-lead of the Tucson team of the Arizona Youth Climate Council ,was “always a big adventurer” whose love for wildlife and the outdoors has stayed with her through her teenage years as she fights to address climate change. Photo courtesy of Carmen De Backer.Now 16 years old, she is co-lead of the Tucson team of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition.
On Tuesday, De Backer’s long, wavy copper hair rested over her shoulder, partially covering the “AZYCC” logo on her t-shirt, as she introduced Rep. Adelita Grijalva and Ward 5 Council member Selina Barajas to more than a dozen Arizona youth during a climate change conversation at El Pueblo Activity Center on Tucson’s south side. The two elected officials were there to listen to how extreme heat and climate change impact young people’s lives, and to share some of the ways they’re addressing the issue at a local and national level. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter hosted the conversation alongside a handful of community organizations.
The wall and windows of the large room were lined with signs that read “Climate Can’t Wait,” “El Clima No Espera,” and “Too Hot To Learn.”
The students, mostly high school aged from Tucson and Phoenix, sat at tables arranged in a rectangle as Grijalva told them how much their voices matter on the issue of environmental justice. She assured them that there are national leaders, local leaders like Barajas, fighting to address climate change. But the solutions have to also come from youth, she said.
“This conversation cannot wait for people my age and older to figure it out,” Grijalva said. “Because you’re the ones that are going to be living with the consequences every single day.”
Climate change is the biggest challenge this generation is facing, Grijalva said, and it’s important that the adults who are in positions of power listen to youth rather than simply telling them what elected officials are doing to address the problem.
Barajas urged the students to think of ways to get their classmates and neighbors more involved in climate solutions and more civically engaged. She said there is a correlation between low voter turnout in Ward 5 and the climate inequities South Side residents face, like poorer air quality and less tree shade.
“I want to see if there’s opportunities that we could collaborate and bring more people in the room because I want this area to be the greenest area,” Barajas said. “I want this area to have the highest voter turnout.”
Over the next hour, students described how heat affects their daily life as they watch parents work outside in dangerous temperatures, endure triple-digit heat during after-school sports and push school and city officials to adopt policy changes.
One student from Pueblo High School said her dad builds pools, and it’s been difficult for him and his coworkers to get the job done in extreme heat. She wanted to highlight that the people most affected by heat are outdoor workers, as well as unhoused people who have to spend most of their day outside.
Ward 5 council member Selina Barajas (left) and Rep. Adelita Grijalva met with Arizona youth Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026 at El Pueblo Activity Center to discuss the impacts of climate change and listen to how extreme heat affects their young constituents. Credit: Stephanie Casanova
Barajas added that the city has a list of cooling centers for people to find relief from the heat, including one at El Pueblo Center across the parking lot.
Azulayde Romero, a junior at South Ridge High School in Phoenix, also worries about the wellbeing of her dad, Olegario. He has been a landscaper since he was 21, and Romero has seen how excessive heat has impacted him over the years.
“My dad’s older now, he’s 62 years old, and he’s still working in the heat, from 5 in the morning to like 3 in the afternoon, and seeing him it’s upsetting, you know, because I want to do something about it,” Romero said.
Romero joined a team of youth through a Mi Familia en Acción summer fellowship and helped educate her neighbors about tree shade inequities on the south side of Phoenix, where there is a predominantly Latino population. The team did some research on the heat island effect and found that many factories and asphalt on Phoenix’s southwest side along with fewer trees cause an even hotter climate in that part of the city.
Romero and her teammates went door to door educating their neighbors about what they learned and helped them register for a workshop with the Salt River Project, where the energy company gives homeowners two free trees to add shade to their property.
“I’m worried about the extreme heat that we’re facing because it feels like [we’re] getting more intense heat waves, and the solutions that we’re getting are often just temporary fixes rather than long-term effect fixes,” Romero said during the discussion. “I just want to know what steps are truly being taken to address this and ensure that our state is being prepared for the future and not just to make a quick fix.”
Grijalva said not much is being done because a lot of the long-term solutions need to come from the federal government and right now “you have people in power that don’t believe that what’s happening to our climate is a real thing, they don’t believe in science. They don’t believe in solutions.” While it’s important that everyday residents do their part in saving energy and water, corporations also need to do their part and be held accountable, Grijalva said.
The daughter of immigrant parents, De Backer grew up in a community in Tucson where her neighbors struggled to keep the AC on during the summer. At school, she notices the waste – single-use plastic, food waste, incandescent lights that use more energy than LED lights – and wonders why no one is fixing the problem. She’s not relying on adults to address these issues. Instead, she’s working alongside other teenagers in Tucson to write policy.
De Backer is part of Tucson Unified School District’s Climate Action and Sustainability team, which ensures that the district is making changes according to its policy code.
“I feel I would be doing an injustice to my community, I’d be doing an injustice to my family, if I wasn’t fighting,” De Backer said. “Because if I wasn’t fighting, then there would be one less person that could help with the impacts of climate change.”
Sofia Garcia, a senior at Canyon del Oro High School highlighted the policy report on energy, titled “Distributed Capacity Procurement,” that Arizona Youth Climate Coalition members drafted and presented to the city’s Commission on Climate Saving Energy.
The group spent months analyzing Tucson Electric Power reports, doing a fiscal analysis and gathering community input “to build a more sustainable future for Arizona’s energy grid,” Garcia said. They are hoping the city adopts the policy.
Garcia, co-lead of the Tucson team of the Arizona Youth Climate Coalition, said it’s important that youth are given more opportunities to be involved in addressing climate change.
“We’re the ones inheriting the environment,” Garcia said. “We’re the ones that are going to have to deal with these long-term effects for generations to come.”
Gabriel Sadza, a sophomore at University High School, shares a story about having to practice for the marching band inside the school gym with no AC. Sadza was one of more than a dozen Arizona teens who participated in a conversation about extreme heat with council member Selina Barajas (left) and Rep. Adelita Grijalva (center, seated) on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2026 at El Pueblo Activity Center. Credit: Stephanie CasanovaGabriel Sadza, a sophomore at University High School, took the microphone from Garcia. With his 6-4 stature and his booming, upbeat voice, he admitted he was a little nervous to speak in front of an audience.
Sadza shared a story about having to practice for the marching band inside the school gym.
“We’re doing our plie, relevé. I’m sweating. I can’t see out of my eyes. My sweat’s stinging my eyes. So we move into the gym. The gym AC blows out. We’re marching in a 95-degree gym for 14 hours a day, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. for a week straight,” he said. “This shouldn’t be how we live here in Tucson. We need to adapt.”
That was one of many times Sadza has had to deal with excessive heat during a school activity. He remembers his first cross country practice. He was in the second grade. It was over 100 degrees.
“I’m not joking when I tell you I was dying. My vision was blurring. I was going through it,” he said. “I was so dehydrated, and at that age, I didn’t know what was happening to me. I didn’t know how to ask for help. I wasn’t educated on the dangers we were facing with extreme heat and also ways to remedy that.”
He remembers an advisor got him some water, helped him find shade and sat with him to make sure he was OK. The heat has only gotten worse since then, Sadza said.
While canceling outdoor recreation is left up to each school principal, the Arizona Department of Health Services recommends moving activities indoors when temperatures are above 105 degrees.
“When I got to high school, I was like, ‘What can I do in my position and pulling from my experiences to help fight the increasing climate crisis, and you know make sure students in the future, students like myself that love playing outside, that love going on hikes with their families, ensure that they don’t experience the same struggles that I faced growing up?'” he said.
Sadza, who is the communications director for the Youth Climate Coalition, has been involved in finding solutions to address climate change. Tuesday’s conversation was a step in the right direction, he said, but the work needs to continue in order to find climate solutions that will make Arizona’s communities better for everyone.
As the event came to a close, Grijalva told the youth that her office was committed to having more conversations on climate solutions on a monthly basis. The students say they intend to hold her to that commitment.
Arizona Youth Tell Lawmakers: Climate Change Can’t Wait was originally published by Arizona Luminaria and is republished with permission.

AI chatbots and online therapy promise easier mental health care, but technology may be eroding the boundaries, privacy and human connection that make psychotherapy effective.
While America is suffering a mental health crisis, the good news is that tens of millions of people are getting help. In 2023, 60 million adults reported having sought counseling or treatment in the previous year, and the numbers continue to rise.
Psychotherapy works because of what’s known as the therapeutic frame, a set of boundaries that create safety and structure for patients and clinicians. Sessions last 50 minutes. Fees are agreed upon prior to the start of treatment. The therapist remains neutral, shares little of their personal life, and holds confidentiality sacred.
The bad news is that the future of mental health is increasingly being built around the idea that those boundaries are obstacles. Online therapy platforms promise unlimited access. AI chatbots serve up emotional support. New software records sessions and generates clinical notes.
Each innovation claiming to improve therapy by making it faster or easier is dismantling the very framework that makes it effective. The people shaping the future of mental health often understand venture capital better than they understand the human psyche.
Take BetterHelp, for example. The world’s largest online therapy platform spent $76.9 million on podcast ads in 2021, nearly triple the next largest advertiser in any category. It is a subscription service that uses online questionnaires and algorithms to automate the process of matching patients with therapists. Its closest competitor, Talkspace, does the same. Then patients and therapists interact online via video, audio, or live chat.
While these online platforms advertise accessibility and seem like a good way to get more people into mental health care, they come with a dangerous downside.
The consensus amongst seasoned clinicians is that 20 to 25 clients per week is the sustainable upper bound for a full-time therapist. Therapists at some of these major direct-to-consumer platforms routinely report carrying 40 or more, with new clients assigned to therapists without their consent and with no path to refer anyone to other clinicians.
A clinician juggling 45 clients doesn't have the bandwidth to give each their full attention. Clients might walk away believing therapy doesn't work, a potentially deadly conclusion for the one in 20 American adults who reported seriously considering suicide in the past year.
And when a patient finds a therapist through one of these platforms, the platform owns the relationship. For instance, if a therapist leaves BetterHelp, they can’t take a client with them, putting an abrupt end to whatever progress may have been made.
The online therapy platforms also sell features like 24/7 messaging and unlimited therapist access, which sound good in ads but undermine another crucial part of the therapeutic frame: containment. The therapy hour is designed as a holding space, a consistent environment where the therapist and client can safely explore and process complex emotions. When the container leaks and communication flows freely outside the session, the clarity and safety of that sacred space dissolve.
At the same time, more than half of U.S. adults say they would feel comfortable discussing personal mental health issues with an AI chatbot, bypassing the desire for a licensed mental health professional altogether. A new study shows nearly one in five young adults is turning to AI chatbots for emotional support, with two-thirds of them not telling anyone they’re doing it.
Unfortunately, comfort and convenience aren’t the same as safety, and chatbots built on large language models like ChatGPT are no substitute for licensed mental health professionals.
Taking the personal touch out of therapy already is proving to have significant consequences.
Lawmakers in states like Illinois, Utah, and Nevada are recognizing the risks of turning therapy over to machines, restricting how AI companies can operate in the mental health space. And class action lawsuits and FTC settlements against large online therapy companies expose that they have engaged in everything from selling patients’ sensitive data to third-party platforms for targeted advertising purposes to matching patients with unlicensed or inappropriate therapists.
Therapists themselves are facing growing pressure to integrate AI into their practices too. New software can record therapy sessions and use AI to generate progress notes automatically. While this probably could save therapists administrative time, we have remarkably little evidence about what AI recording does to the therapeutic process. Clients can agree to being recorded and still hold back without realizing it, the same way most of us speak differently when we know someone else is listening. Before these tools become routine, we should understand how they affect the conversations they're meant to preserve.
Technology absolutely has a place in mental health. It can help connect people with care, improve scheduling and billing, and make treatment more accessible. But when we hand over the intimate, human work of therapy to AI or prioritize efficiency over depth, we risk losing what makes therapy transformative.
Therapy’s power lies in its slowness, its privacy, and its humanity, and those qualities can’t be coded into an algorithm or outsourced to AI. If we continue to treat psychotherapy as another system to optimize, we will optimize away the very things that make it work.
A licensed psychotherapist, Paul Fugelsang is the founder and executive director of Open Path Psychotherapy Collective, which has helped more than 160,000 clients in need access affordable care through a network of 36,000 therapists across the U.S. and Canada.
Megan Cornish, LICSW, is a licensed clinical social worker, clinician advocate, and consultant to behavioral health companies.

The partisanship of the Roberts Supreme Court Republicans violates the neutrality central to the rule of law's legitimacy. Moreover, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, viewed avaricious oligarchs and seditious demagogues as the two gravest threats to democracy. They would doubtlessly view the Roberts Republicans – with rulings institutionalizing oligarchic pay-to-play while embracing Trump’s authoritarianism - as another grave threat.
The Rule of Law Survived One Judicial Coup
In hindsight, one can marvel at the muted reaction to the Rehnquist Supreme Court ruling in Florida’s 2000 presidential election. The Republican majority on that court stopped a careful vote recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in midstream, simply declaring George W. Bush president by 537 votes. Their haste was a planned coup: had the recount continued, Al Gore would have won Florida and the presidency.
Its coup did not mar the Court’s reputation in those halcyon days. More informed with time, the sadder but wiser contemporary assessment of the Supreme Court has sent its favorability ratings falling precipitously.
A majority of Americans now view the Roberts Court as discredited, its rulings repeatedly reflecting the justices’ personal political priorities rather than the law. This erosion of judicial integrity has rendered the court illegitimate. Some 86% of respondents to a 2025 Pew survey believed Supreme Court justices should not allow their political views to influence rulings - but 56% believe the justices are doing just that. And a 2026 Washington Post/Ipsos survey found that 55% disapproved of the court, the highest on record.
An International Embarrassment
Critics of the Robert court have numerous complaints.
First, the Roberts majority believes the Founders were mistaken to distrust oligarchs. Instead, they and their predecessors have engineered a pay-to-play political system. These rulings, including McCutcheon and Citizens United, have placed the corruption of money at the center of American politics, with public policy dominated by wealthy donors (read what Harvard professors call “one of the most important studies you’ve probably never heard of”). Pay-to-play has made the US electoral system an international embarrassment – of lower quality than in other rich democracies or nearby Barbados, Brazil, Canada and Jamaica – no better than other similar oligarchies like India and Mexico.
Second, the Roberts Republican majority is a group of politicians in robes, the first partisan court in history. Five of the six were Republican Party operatives in their pre-court careers, including three - Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett – who rushed to Florida in 2000 to help devise and implement the Rehnquist Court coup. The public agrees: 79% of Republicans approve of them versus just 14% of Democrats, the largest gap Gallup has ever recorded. Their unprecedented partisanship is exemplified by rulings favoring the Republican Party on issues ranging from gerrymandering, Jim Crow poll taxes, voter suppression, and neutering the Voting Rights Act, to the 2026 midterm elections.
Third, the Roberts Republicans are ideological outliers, their conservatism well outside the U.S. mainstream. They were hand-picked, vetted, and groomed by the conservative Federalist Society – their appointments staged by wealthy Republicans. Moreover, all but Thomas were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. Their partisanship and conservatism have forced Republican Senators to make their confirmations highly politicized affairs. All but Roberts garnered bare majorities, among the fewest Senate confirmation votes in U.S. history.
Fourth, the Republican majority has enabled President Trump’s creation of an all-powerful executive. They have enabled his weakening of Congressionally Mandated independent agencies (ending a 91-year precedent) and his actions trampling congressional budget authority. They have also gifted Trump broad immunity for criminal acts.
Fifth, the Roberts Republicans' support of Trump’s policies has sparked a judicial civil war. Federal Circuit and Appellate-level court judges have blocked hundreds of the Trump administration’s Executive Orders and bogus “emergencies” declarations, like invoking wartime powers to deport immigrants or allowing troops to police cities. Yet, the Roberts majority has overturned 80% of them to please Trump, almost always without explanation, in an unprecedented surge in use of the shadow docket. Their procedure and rulings have appalled Federal judges. Lower court judges are terming their obsequious Supreme Court's overrides “mystical,” creating a judicial crisis. The Roberts justices have responded by upbraiding judicial critics, instructing them to silently obey their betters.
Sixth, the Roberts court’s politicization and ethics compare poorly to apex courts elsewhere. A politicized appointment process, partisanship, and low-quality justices are why the American court ranks just 27th among global apex courts. Independent, non-political legal experts confirmed as judges by legislative supermajorities for limited terms are de rigueur abroad. For instance, appointment to an apex German court requires a two-thirds vote of parliamentarians, with justices serving non-renewable 12-year terms. Moreover, apex courts abroad have ethical standards policed by independent entities with remits to investigate and recommend removal of unethical judges. In sharp contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court relies on self-policing, with ethical violations commonplace. Justices have received $2 million book deals and millions in gifts, for instance, from wealthy benefactors with business before the court. You can judge their ethics for yourself: is it reasonable for Chief Justice Roberts’ wife to have received over $20 million from legal firms since his appointment? And do you agree with the Roberts Republicans that cash “gratuities” paid to reward politicians are not “bribes?
Seventh, the nation’s Founders would be aghast at the Roberts Republicans substituting their individual partisan preferences for legal scholarship. James Madison, for instance, envisaged a court of integrity - non-political, modest, independent legal experts rendering reasoned interpretations of the law - courageous justices ensuring that the law diffused power.
A 2028 Reckoning
The legitimacy and stability of the rule of law are jeopardized by the judicial civil war and the public perception of the Roberts Court as a partisan tool. A reckoning may well be precipitated should the Democrats attain a governing trifecta in 2028 or thereafter. Leading Democrats are eager to dismantle the Roberts Court. And the ideological Roberts Republicans might seek to neutralize that danger with a judicial coup.
The 2000 judicial coup was received at the time with remarkable equanimity. The reaction to a similar coup in 2028 is certain to be vastly different, with widespread, sustained civil disobedience sundering the legitimacy and stability of the rule of law.
George Tyler is a former deputy assistant treasury secretary and World Bank official. He is the author of books including Billionaire Democracy and What Went Wrong.
Independent voters now represent the largest share of the American electorate, and yet they remain mostly unrepresented in federal office. Both major parties have spent decades optimizing for their bases, almost always leaving the near majority of Americans who identify as independent with the choice of either voting for a party candidate they don't fully support or staying home.
A handful of high-profile independent candidates for the US Senate are trying to change that. 2026 is seeing one of the largest surges of interest in independent candidates in recent memory. However, these candidates are often covered as fringe candidates, and stories about them focus more on how they'll impact the outcome of the election between a Republican and Democrat than they do on the substance of the candidate's campaign.
This series exists because the independent electorate deserves better than that. Over the coming months, IVN is conducting in-depth interviews with independent candidates across the country—not just horse-race conversations about polling and fundraising, but substantive discussions about the issues independent voters actually care about.
In Nebraska, Dan Osborn is running for US Senate.
Dan Osborn graduated from Omaha's Roncalli Catholic High School in 1994. He then joined the Navy, serving four years aboard the USS Constellation before moving on to the Nebraska Army National Guard. In 2004, he took a job as an industrial mechanic at the Kellogg's plant in Omaha and joined the union, where he eventually rose to president of BCTGM Local 50G. In that role, he led the 77-day 2021 strike that stopped the company's proposed benefit cuts and kept the plant open. He was later terminated by Kellogg's, an action he attributes to his union role, and now works as a steamfitter with Local 464.
The through-line from the plant floor to the campaign is the same sentence he has been repeating for three years: working people deserve a seat at the table in Washington. In 2024, running as an independent against Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, that message got him 46.5% of the vote—a roughly seven-point loss in a state Donald Trump carried by 20. It was the strongest independent performance in a Nebraska Senate race in the direct election era, and it convinced him to run again immediately.
The field cleared for Osborn in the space of about a week in July. On July 16, the secretary of state's office verified at least 6,096 valid signatures against the 4,000 required, officially placing him on the November ballot. The next day, Democratic nominee Cindy Burbank, who won her primary in May on an explicit promise to step aside, filed paperwork to withdraw. Secretary of State Bob Evnen initially floated keeping her on anyway, then announced on July 21 that state law gave him no discretion to refuse a declination, while calling the maneuver "a cynical manipulation of the ballot process." The result is a head-to-head between Osborn and incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.
Sen. Ricketts is the son of TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and a co-owner of the Chicago Cubs. He served as Nebraska's governor from 2015 to 2023 before being appointed to the Senate in 2023 when Sen. Ben Sasse left to become president of the University of Florida. He won the special election to finish that term, and he won the Republican primary for this cycle with roughly 82% of the vote. He’s been endorsed by President Trump.
The fundraising totals tell a story of two different styles of campaign. Ricketts has raised $11.2 million through June 30—of which ~$5.3 million is a contribution from himself and $3.6 million came from other committees, leaving roughly $2.2 million from individual donors.
Osborn's campaign reports $5.8 million raised with an average second-quarter contribution of about $40 and no corporate PAC money. Osborn's framing at his ballot-qualification press conference was blunt: "Ricketts believes spending is free speech, he believes his voice is louder because he can write a bigger check."
Nebraska's registration numbers explain why this is still an uphill race. As of July, the state had 620,000 registered Republicans, 328,000 Democrats, and 282,000 nonpartisans—a Republican plurality of nearly 50%.
Public polling has consistently shown a close race when Osborn and Ricketts are placed head-to-head, with Osborn ranging from one point behind to five points ahead. That polling comes with a significant caveat: nearly all of it has been sponsored by Osborn's campaign or by groups aligned with him or other independents. What is notable is not the toplines but the absence of any survey showing Ricketts pulling clear, or even ahead by more than the margin of error.
Osborn's answer on what he brought forward from the last cycle itself speaks to the increased professionalism of his independent campaign. "We have numbers now," he said. "We have data of how we performed in every county, so we've identified where we need to do better and what our actual win numbers are."
That county-level model can now serve the basis for field operations rather than a guess.
The second asset is recognition. Osborn puts it at 86% statewide. "I don't have to spend the first half hour of every conversation explaining who I am." The third is a volunteer network that returned, showing a high level of grassroots enthusiasm that’s reflected in his small-dollar fundraising advantage.
The one thing he says he got wrong was social media, which he now describes as a major channel he underinvested in.
He also is more direct in his criticism of Ricketts—Osborn called him "the Lex Luthor of Nebraska" and said that as a two-term governor "he ran the state like a mob boss." But what he says of both of his senatorial opponents from the past two cycles is the part that matters to him most: "They're just backbenchers that will rubber stamp whatever their party tells them to do.” Even when, Osborn says, it isn’t working for the people in Nebraska.
Osborn's coalition-building is being built on the backbone of a grueling campaign schedule. He did 200 public town halls in 2024 alone. By the time we spoke in July, he had already done more than 90 this cycle, with a commitment to reach all 93 counties. He described driving twelve miles up a rancher's driveway to have a conversation with a Republican voter—not to pitch, but to ask what he wanted from a US senator and what he felt he was getting.
On the specific problem of independent turnout—recent polling suggests about 30% of independents nationally plan to sit out the midterms—his pitch is less about mobilization mechanics than about identification. "If you're talking about team mentality, that's whose team I'm playing for: the people that are frustrated with the two-party doom loop that we're stuck in. Not passing farm bills, not passing immigration reforms. They're working for the money interests, the lobbyists, the special interests that fund campaigns."
Every independent Senate candidate in this series has been asked what they would demand before helping either party organize a Senate majority—the "fulcrum" strategy that the six of them have been developing in coordination. Ty Pinkins laid out a detailed list of single-issue bills and rules changes for the first day of a new Congress. Bob Chew added procedural items on reconciliation and restoring the 60-vote threshold for confirmations. Todd Achilles framed the whole exercise as a constitutional reform wave.
Osborn's answer is narrower and, he argues, upstream of all of it. "For me, it really is money in politics," he said. "Money in politics touches so many, if not every, issue that's out there. If you're taking their money, you've got to do their bidding." Citizens United is a Supreme Court ruling, he acknowledged, so the near-term work is finding ways to combat its effects rather than waiting on a reversal.
He also thinks the demonstration matters as much as the legislation. "Just existing in the Senate with a win, and doing it in a way where we didn't take defense contractor money or AIPAC money or railroad money or Facebook money or AI money or cryptocurrency money—just existing in that realm is going to show so many other people, and hopefully voters across the country, that we need to highlight this."
His shorthand for the problem comes from Robin Williams: politicians should wear NASCAR jackets with their sponsors' patches, so voters know in advance how they'll vote.
When asked about his own commitment to term limits outside of legislation implementing them, his response was hilariously blunt. "I'm 51 years old. Twelve years puts me—yeah, I want to retire someday, man. I don't need to sign a pledge. I know it's going to be two and out."
But his substantive objection is more interesting than the personal one. Term limits alone, he argues, make the lobbying problem worse rather than better. "The thing that has to live next to it—that's actually more important than term limits—is a complete ban on any former member of Congress becoming a lobbyist. They have a whole Rolodex of all the power players in Washington and all the people with the money. They could probably be way more effective as a lobbyist with those contacts than they could as an actual lawmaker."
He points to Nebraska's own unicameral as the cautionary example: term limits there are too short, and the result is a pipeline of former state senators who now influence the body as lobbyists more than they did as members. His package is three-part and interlocking—term limits, a lifetime lobbying ban, and a stock trading ban with actual enforcement. "Those three things together could be very powerful, but you have to do term limits right."
On age limits, he was more equivocal, noting that voters keep reelecting older members and that "the devil you know versus the devil you don't" seems to be doing real work. But the underlying concern is straightforward: "At some point that decline that is inevitable in all of us is going to happen, and we don't want that to happen while they're in these very high positions that affect so many people's lives."
Osborn's economic platform runs under the name Growth and Fairness, and the two halves are meant to be inseparable. On the revenue side, he identifies two targets: the Department of Defense, which has never passed an audit despite billions in unaccounted assets—"I'm not suggesting we cut defense spending," he was careful to add—and the roughly 50 multinational corporations that park profits overseas rather than repatriating them.
"I pay my fair share. They should too."
On healthcare, he resists jumping to a coverage model before addressing structure. "We don't want to put the cart ahead of the horse. It is about breaking up the monopolies, making sure corporations like CVS can't vertically integrate the entire system where they profit at every single level."
The argument he makes most often is not a moral one but a growth one: at small business roundtables across the state and when talking with independent ranchers and farmers, health insurance is the number one issue every single time. "That's their Achilles' heel. If you could reduce that for people, you would see a massive boom—people wanting to start their own businesses, smart people who don't have to be stuck in a factory."
The same antitrust logic drives his small business platform. Driving across Nebraska, he said, nearly every town has a Dollar General placed just outside the city limits, with revenue flowing to a company in Tennessee. He believes the chain's purchasing model may violate the Robinson-Patman Act, the Depression-era law meant to ensure small grocers can buy the same goods at the same price as large chains.
"Dollar General doesn't help anybody out… The mom and pop grocery shops I've gotten to visit—they're awesome."
Asked what he would need to accomplish to consider a Senate tenure worthwhile, he named four: Social Security solvency through lifting the payroll tax cap; right-to-repair laws with teeth, including for military contracts; aggressive privacy protection, especially against surveillance pricing, license plate readers, and algorithmic targeting of children; and, above all, getting big money out of politics.
"If I could get the money out of politics, the dominoes will fall. Corruption will be lessened by default."
On war powers, made particularly relevant now because of the ongoing war in Iran, he was direct. He called it an illegal and unjust war, argued that the 60-day window in the War Powers Resolution reflects a mobilization timeline that no longer exists, and delivered the line that summarizes his view of the institution he wants to join: "Congress needs to grow a spine."
Osborn enters the general election with the structural setup no independent Senate candidate has had in modern memory: a cleared field, a two-way race against an incumbent who is struggling to break away in available polling, near-universal name recognition, a functioning county-level field model, and a fundraising base of small donors deep enough to compete without a party behind it.
He is arguably the most viable independent Senate candidate in the country this cycle.
The obstacles are also real. Ricketts can self-fund without limit and has already demonstrated the willingness. Nebraska's Republican registration advantage is close to 50%. The polling showing a tied race is almost entirely campaign-aligned, and he recently lost an election among the same electorate while having many of these same advantages.
What distinguishes Osborn within this series is that he is running the least abstract version of the independent argument. He does not have a constitutional theory or a procedural wish list. He has a strike, a plant closure, a recent legitimate campaign, and a message about the working class that resonates throughout his background. Whether that translates into the roughly four points he needs to find between 2024 and 2026 is the question November will settle.
Dan Osborn is Ready to Represent the Working Class in Congress. Is Nebraska Ready to Let Him? is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.